Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Bezanson


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While on a pure nose count this could be "no consensus", the keep arguments do not generally address the claims of lack of sourcing, or just point to web searches rather than particular in-depth references. Given this, the "delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more policy-based. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Keith Bezanson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Canada, Bolivia,  and Peru.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is more than a little absurd to say "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" when the subject of this page has had so many significant roles, not only as an ambassador. The page should surely be tagged as needing better references, not deleted, to join the long list bizarrely celebrating the deletion of diplomatic articles on the nominator's user page. Moonraker (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM. Where are the sources that would make this person notable? LibStar (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unsourced BLP. : BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
 * The keep club hasn't supplied sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.
 * BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Soft Delete: Currently fails GNG, but as the nomitator has a strong point it should be soft delete. NP83 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep on the strength of the listings at Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Keith+Bezanson&btnG= Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambassadors are certainly not automatically non-notable, as the nomination statement would seemingly have us believe. They can be notable, under GNG. The subject is also an academic and author, and notability might be achieved those ways too. But I didn't find GNG-worthy detailed independent sources about Bezanson, I didn't find published reviews of his two coauthored books, and I don't find the citation record pointed to above by Eastmain to be strong enough for WP:PROF. That leaves his work as director of a Canadian government think tank and a university research center, but I don't think those are the types of major academic institutions described by WP:PROF and I didn't find GNG-worthy coverage of those roles either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein. He fails GNG and NPROF, no book reviews in academia (JSTOR) and not a strong enough citation count to pass NPROF#1. --hroest 14:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: A retired very highly noted Development Scholar...ex-Head of IDS at Sussex (UK's leading development institute and one of the World's) and of Canada's International Development Research Centre. I think these could allow WP:PROF He has held a highest-level appointed administrative post at a major academic institution.  (Msrasnw (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC))
 * That is not the highest-level administrative post of the University of Sussex. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Searches on Google books (Currie-Alder, B. (2015). Research for the Developing World: Public Funding from Australia, Canada, and the UK. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.) confirm that he was the IDRC president, and therefore I agree with (Msrasnw CT55555 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Head of IDS is not the highest-level admin post at an academic institution, that would be the chancellor/VC of University of Sussex. The IDRC is also not a highly-regarded independent research center, it is a governmental research funding org that is a subdepartment of Global Affairs Canada. He does not meet any criteria for NPROF or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Possible error: My understanding is that IDS is an independent research institute. "IDS has close links with the University, but is financially and constitutionally independent." (https://www.ids.ac.uk/about/governance/).  Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC))
 * Keep per CT55555. Both of these academic books devote a few pages each to Bezanson's time heading IDRC, so that with some of the other available sources is sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. The subject will probably never have a super long article, but that is not the bar for inclusion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see the previews for those pages in the first source, are they covering him specifically or just covering events that occurred during his tenure? The second source is not independent as Currie-Alder is part of the IDRC. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's about five pages, and I would say about half of that is about him and things he specifically did as IDRC head and the other half about the impact of those decisions. Currie-Adler didn't overlap with Bezanson at IDRC and the book is published by Oxford University Press, who surely would've been aware. So while, we should be slightly more careful, I don't think this disqualifies it from being a WP:RS because of WP:INDY reasons. This book has 60 pages (pgs. 207-268) devoted to Bezanson's time as the IDRC head, and while I don't have full access, the previews do give several passages of things Bezanson himself did in that position. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Currie-Alder is definitely RS but also definitely not independent from IDRC, so cannot be used to establish notability of Bezanson. Its publication by OUP is irrelevant here. The third source is by the same authors as the first so doesn't count as a second piece of SIGCOV. I agree the Muirhead book(s) are SIGCOV, so I'll strike my !vote for now, but we still need another independent RS with SIGCOV to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete As per David Eppstein. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.